In the energy sector, every national decision has continental repercussions. The closure of nuclear power plants in Germany and Belgium is a striking example: their maintenance would have profoundly altered the economic and climate balance of the European electricity system.
The March 2026 publication, “Cross-Border Impacts of Nuclear Phase-Out Policies on the European Power System: Economic and Environmental Insights for Strategic Energy Planning,” explores the consequences of closing nuclear power plants in Germany and Belgium. Not only on their national electricity systems but also on the entire European network.
Published in Energy Strategy Reviews, this analysis reveals how each energy decision can resonate far beyond borders and influence the economy and environment of the Old Continent. To evaluate these impacts, the authors rely on a counterfactual scenario: they assume that reactors with a capacity of 8 GW still in operation in 2022 would be kept active until 2030.
Loss of a 5% emissions reduction by 2030
Nuclear energy helps limit the use of gas and coal-fired power plants, which are significant greenhouse gas emitters, in the electricity mix. “The CO2 emissions from the European electricity system would be reduced by 16.4 million tonnes per year by 2030, a 5% decrease in the counterfactual scenario compared to the current situation.”
Prolonging the operation would have led to a reduction of 9.2 million tonnes of emissions just in Germany and Belgium. This corresponds to “56% of the total reduction in European emissions” in the counterfactual scenario. The remaining 44% is distributed in Europe due to cross-border effects. Indeed, countries with a heavily carbon-based energy mix reduce their CO2 emissions as they access “cheaper and lower-carbon electricity imports.”
A winning economic dynamic
“There is generally a direct positive correlation between the reduction of CO2 emissions and the decrease in operating costs,” affirm the authors of the publication. The OECD, in the 2019 report “The Cost of Decarbonization,” already confirmed: “Variable costs gradually decrease as we transition from a low-carbon emitting system dominated by nuclear energy.” And this study supports this claim: maintaining 4 GW of nuclear capacity in each of the two countries leads to an annual gain of 1.5 billion euros for Belgium and 1.8 billion euros for Germany. In total, extending 8 GW of nuclear capacity allows an economic gain of 3.09 billion euros in Europe.
The impact varies across countries. With the maintenance of nuclear and renewable energy-producing countries like France and Denmark, their export volumes and energy prices decrease. For these nations, which abundantly produce electricity competitively priced, the shutdown of reactors in Belgium and Germany is economically favorable. Conversely, net importing countries like Poland and Italy benefit from the extension of nuclear capacities, as they “benefit from additional controllable energy at a lower cost,” reducing their expenses and increasing their total surplus.
Keeping nuclear power plants in Belgium and Germany would have been beneficial for the climate and the economy, whether for these two countries or more broadly for the European Union. The effects of energy policies adopted by a nation are not limited to that country: they influence the entire continent. “Due to the interdependence of European electricity systems, political decisions and energy mix choices in one country have an impact on other countries,” the authors of this study warn.
